





"^%^ 



v-^' 







■^^\-;.;^'V c°,-^<>- J'.^^i^^^x c 

















O^^.^J^'A 



^./•rr;-' ^0^ '^^ **^^\^'«-' 



)^..«^' 





"-vn^-^' 


















4" <" 








^''\ 




^ 






5^"-^^.. - 





^oV^ 












-^^K^ 





^<>.'^^\/ %*^-*/ ^^^'^^\/ % 




v^* 




'j^-b" 






■ • . ^ A^ r • ^ ' * 




^q..*^-*/ '^^^'^r^\^'*'^ ^<%'^'vr.'^'\^' "V'^r 




















7 O, 




**'% 





















o > 




-^^0^ 



^""^ 















u-o^ 



5°^ 




'^t 



o V 




L4 V»0 




'>i 



bV" 


















v y- V ' \jfLZl ,- — i ^r ■ -^ ■' 



' F 



"r^^-' 






SENATE No. 8/. 

. REPORT 

^^ ON THE 

POWERS AND DUTIES OF CONGRESS 



UPON THE SUBJECT OF 



SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE. 







The Joint Special Committee, on the petition of Asa 
Stoughton and others, and other petitions relating to the 
same subject, consisted of Messrs. Alvord, Fairbanks, 
Kimball and Clark, of the Senate, and 
Messrs. Blake, of Boston^ 

Hyde, of Southbridge, 

Wilder, of Leominster, 

Merrill, of Lee, and 

Whittier, of Haverhillf of the House. 



^^'o 



Contmontoealtti of iHassacljusetts^ 



In Senate, April 6, 1838. 

The Joint Special Committee, to whom were referred the 
petition of Asa Stoughton and others, of the town of 
Gill, and many other petitions, of the same tenor, ask- 
ing the Legislature to declare that Congress has the 
power, and ought to abolish Slavery and the Slave 
Trade in the District of Columbia, and the territories 
of the United States, and the Slave Trade between the 
several States of the Union ; to whom were also com- 
mitted the petition of Heman Humphrey and others, of 
the Faculty and Students of Amherst College, and many 
other petitions, requesting the same declaration as to 
Slavery and the Slave Trade in the District of Colum- 
bia ; and to whom were also committed the petition of 
Eben. Crosby and others, of West Hawley, and many 
other petitions, on the subject of the Admission of New 
States into the Union, have considered the several 
matters, so submitted to them, and beg leave to 

REPORT: 

There is little difference of opinion in this Common- 
wealth as to the moral, social and political character of 
Domestic Slavery. It is regarded by all, or nearly all, 
as a wrong in itself, and an evil in all its relations and 
influences. There can be little dispute either as to the 



4 DOMESTIC SLAVERY. April, 

degree of these qualities. The wrong is the greatest, 
which man can inflict upon his fellow, and the evil, deep, 
certain and aggravated. The only practical question here 
would seem to be as to the relative power of different 
governments over the subject, and the comparative expe- 
diency of diflerent modes of action. 

There is, happily, no slavery in Massachusetts. By 
the very constitution, which gave her birth as a state, she 
vindicated her sincerity in the cause of human freedom, 
by emancipating every slave within her borders. 

This institution does, however, exist extensively in the 
Union, of which she is a member. But so far as it is 
confined within other states, it is a matter for their ex- 
clusive regulation, and with it Massachusetts has no pow- 
er of political interference. 

The petitioners admit this. They do not contend that 
Congress ought to abolish slavery as it exists within the 
several states. They acknowledge that it has no power 
to do so. But they insist, that the constitution has given 
to Congress authority, to a certain extent and in some 
places, over the subject of slavery and the slave trade ; 
and that, for the exercise of this authority, for the pur- 
poses of justice and the common good, the people of this 
state, as of each of the states, are responsible according 
to the measure of their influence. 

The powers supposed to reside in Congress are the 
following, all of which are made, separately or in combi- 
nation, the subjects of these petitions : — 

1st. To abolish slavery and the slave trade in the 
District of Columbia. 

2d. To abolish slavery and the slave trade in the ter- 
ritories of the United States. 



1838. SENATE— No. 87. 5 

3d. To regulate or prohibit the slave trade between 
the several states. 

4th. To refuse the admission into the Union of any 
new state whose constitution shall tolerate domestic 
slavery. 

The petitioners ask of the Legislature to affirm the 
power of Congress, and the duty of its exercise, in each 
of the forms before stated. The committee having given 
to every part of the grave and delicate subject committed 
to them, their anxious and careful attention, proceed to 
state the conclusions at which they have arrived, on each 
branch of the subject separately, and in the order before 
taken ; giving merely the more prominent principles and 
reasons, which govern their opinions, without attempting 
a labored argument, or pretending to a thorough discus- 
sion of either. 

The first question thus presented, is, as to the po7cer of 
Congress over Slavery and the Slave Trade in the District 
of Columbia. 

Your committee have no doubt upon this point. They 
believe that Congress has over this, as over every other 
subject of legislation within the District, absolute and ex- 
clusive authority. This power is indeed conceded by a 
large majority of those who contend against its exercise; 
and has never, till lately, been questioned. 

The complete and exclusive authority of Congress over 
the seat of government was deemed so important, as to 
be made the subject of constitutional provision. In the 
eighth section of the first article of the Constitution is 
this clause : — " The Congress shall have power to exer- 
cise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over 
such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by 
cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Con- 



6 DOMESTIC SLAVERY. April, 

gress, become the seat of the government of the United 
States." 

In pursuance of this provision cessions of territory w^ere 
made by Virginia and Maryland to the United States. 
The act of Maryland is in these words : (Lavi^s of Mary- 
land, November Session, 1788, ch. 46.) 

" Be it enacted, by the General Assembly of Maryland, 
That the Representatives of this State in the House of 
Representatives of the Congress of the United States, 
appointed to assemble at New York, on the first Wednes- 
day of March next, be, and they are hereby authorized 
and required, on the behalf of this State, to cede to the 
Congress of the United States, any district not exceeding 
ten miles square which Congress may fix upon and ac- 
cept for the seat of government of the United States." 

The act of Virginia [passed Dec. 3, 1789,] after re- 
citing in a preamble the advantages of the situation on 
the banks of the river " Potowmack '' for the permanent 
seat of the General Government, enacts, "That a tract 
of country, not exceeding ten miles square, or any lesser 
quantity, to be located within the limits of this state, and 
in any part thereof as Congress may by law direct, shall 
be, and the same is hereby forever ceded and relinquish- 
ed to the Congress and Government of the United States, 
in full and absolute right, and exclusive jurisdiction as 
well of soil, as of persons, residing or to reside thereon, 
pursuant to the tenor and effect of the eighth section of 
the first article of the constitution of the government of 
the United vStates. 

Sec. 2. Provided, that nothing herein contained, shall 
be construed to vest in the United States any right of 
property in the soil, or to effect the rights of individuals 



1838. SENATE— No. 87. 7 

therein, otherwise than the same shall or may be trans- 
ferred by such individuals to the United States. 

Sec. 3. And provided also, that the jurisdiction of the 
laws of this Commonwealth, over the persons and proper- 
ty of individuals residing within the limits of the cession 
aforesaid, shall not cease or determine, until Congress, 
having accepted the said cession, shall by law provide for 
the government thereof, under their jurisdiction, in man- 
ner provided by the article of the constitution before re- 
cited." 

Congress fixed upon the District of Columbia for the 
seat of government, — accepted unconditionally the ces- 
sions thus made by Maryland and Virginia for that pur- 
pose, and provided for the government of the district. 
Thus the jurisdiction of those States "over the persons 
and property of individuals within its limits " did " cease 
and determine," and they became subject to the exclu- 
sive legislation of Congress, " in full and absolute right,*' 
and as provided in the constitution. 

The only exception in either grant by these states, was 
the unnecessary one in the act of Virginia, that it should 
not be construed as a transfer of " the property in the 
soil" from its rightful owners to the United States. As 
to the jurisdiction, the cessions by the states and the ac- 
ceptance by Congress are absolute and unconditional. 
Indeed they could not have been otherwise, without a 
violation of the constitution. 

Congress has, then, the same full power of legislation 
over the district, which belongs to any state over its own 
territory, with this difference only, that many restrictions 
are constitutionally imposed upon the Legislatures of 
States, which do not lie upon the power of Congress 
over this district. 



8 DOMESTIC SLAVERY. April, 

If legislative authority is competent, anywhere or under 
any circumstances, to the abolition of slavery, the power 
belongs to Congress in its jurisdiction over the district. 
And that slavery is under the control of the law-making 
power, no one can seriously doubt. It requires, indeed, 
positive law for its support, and that which makes it, can 
unmake it also. Slavery has been abolished by legisla- 
tion in at least six of the United States, in the North 
Western Territory by the immediate operation of the or- 
dinance of Congress of 1787, and elsewhere by laws of 
England, France, Austria, Prussia, Germany, Denmark, 
Sweden, and almost every civilized country on the globe. 
It has been abolished, too, in a thousand different forms, 
immediately and at once, or gradually and by the de- 
struction of its parts, — with and without compensation. 
And in all these different modes, the choice of which de- 
pended on discretion merely, its authority has been un- 
questioned. In this country, emancipation has never 
been accompanied, as it often has elsewhere, with com- 
pensation to the owners. Abolition here, however, has 
been immediate and complete but in two instances : in 
Massachusetts, by the constitution, and in the North 
Western Territory, where existing slavery was abolished 
by the operation of the ordinance of 1787. Both these 
instances were previous to the constitution of the United 
States. Whether, in case the slaves should now be 
emancipated by Congress in the district, compensation 
ought to be made, the committee give no opinion. 
Whichever way that question should be decided. Con- 
gress would still have full authority over the subject. 

There are those, however, who, while they admit 
these positions, insist that Congress, in regulating the 
internal affairs of the district, acts as a local Legislature, 



1838. SENATE— No. 87. 9 

and therefore cannot rightfully abolish slavery there, with- 
out the consent of its inhabitants. That, in this respect, 
the people of the district are the constituents of Congress, 
and their will should be binding, in the same manner and 
to the same extent as the will of any other constituency. 
Your committee cannot concur in these views. They 
believe that Congress holds the same character in legis- 
lating for the district, as in its other legislation — that it is 
a national Legislature, responsible not to the people of 
the district, but to the people of the United States. It 
is bound undoubtedly to do justice to the citizens of the 
district, as it is to all, and their interests should be re- 
garded as an element in their deliberations ; but their will 
is not paramount, and ought always to yield to the higher 
claims of national safety, justice and honor, when these 
can be advanced without injury to the just rights of any. 
Of these rights. Congress must be the judge, and is re- 
sponsible for the exercise of its judgment precisely as in 
other acts of legislation. 

In this respect, the situation of the people of the district 
is undoubtedly anomalous. But they entered into it 
gladly and with their eyes open, supposing that the ad- 
vantages to be derived from their situation would more 
than counterbalance the sacrifice. For the sake of hav- 
ing the seat of the national government within their lim- 
its, a circumstance tending to advance their interest and 
increase their influence in a thousand forms, they gave up 
the right to a representative government, and submit- 
ted themselves to the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress 
as a national Legislature. 

That the clause of the constitution before cited would 
have this effect, was well understood at the time of its 
adoption. It was the subject of warm discussion in the 
2 



10 DOMESTIC SLAVERY. April, 

conventions, and was attacked and defended on this 
ground. Amendments were proposed by some of the 
States, limiting the powers of Congress to particular sub- 
jects, but they were rejected or abandoned. (See Story's 
Comm. 96-100. 1 Tucker's Blk. App. 276-7-8. 374. 
2 Elliot's Debates, 321-326.) 

If authority were necessary on this subject, there is 
abundance at hand. 

In Wheaton's Life of William Pinckney, (page 612,) 
will be found an opinion drawn up by that distinguished 
gentleman, and purporting to have been signed by him- 
self, David B. Ogden, Thomas Addis Emmet, John Wells, 
Walter Jones, and Joseph Ogden Hoffman, — all of whom 
were among the most eminent lawyers of the country. 
Much of their opinion respects that clause of the constitu- 
tion before cited, and they agree that the authority thus 
conferred on Congress over the district is entire and ab- 
solute ; — that it is to be exercised by Congress as a na- 
tional not as a territorial government ; — that, in their own 
language, "the power itself is the })ower of the nation; 
— that the whole Union are at oiice the grantors and (by 
their representatives) the depositories of it; — that the 
district upon which, or with a view to which, it is exerted 
is entirely a national district, and that the sovereignty of 
Congress over it was communicated for national ends."^ 
They add in conclusion — "Nor is there any danger to be 
apprehended from allowing to Congressional Legislation 
with regard to the District of Columbia its fullest extent. 
Congress is responsible to the States and the people for 
that legislation. It is in truth the legislation of the States 
and the peojjle over a district, placed under their control 
for their own benefit, not that of the district, except as the 



1838. SENATE— No. 87. 11 

prosperity of the district is involved in, and necessary to, 
the general advantage.^^ 

But this is not all. The same principle has received 
the sanction of the highest judicial authority in the coun- 
try, — that of the Supreme Court of the United States, in 
the famous case of Cohens vs. State of Vir2;inia. The 
ground of this objection, — that Congress in regulating the 
internal affliirs of the district, acts as a local Legislature, 
was there taken by the defendants, and the opinion of the 
court, delivered by the lamented Chief Justice Marshall, 
is full and pointed against it. They declare that Con- 
gress in the exercise of this authority *' is not a local leg- 
islature, but exercises this power like all its other powers 
in its high character as the legislature of the Union. The 
American people thought it a necessary power, and they 
conferred it for their own benefit." (See opinion 6 
Wheaton, pages 424 — 429 inclusive: also 3 Story's Comm. 
102-8: Rawle on Cons. 238-9.) 

It must be unnecessary to pursue the question further. 
Undoubtedly this authority must be exercised with due 
regard to the interests of the district, and the rights of all. 
If slavery there were only local in its effects, the question 
presented to Congress would be the simple one of justice 
between the master and the slave, for both of these are 
under its protection, and have a right to be considered in 
its legislation. But there are national ends besides, of 
the highest importance, which may be involved in the is- 
sue. Is not the honor of the nation, its high character 
for justice, in the keeping of its representatives? And if 
it be true, that the capital of the United States should be 
such, that every honest citizen may go there openly and 
in safety, carrying what opinions he will, — if it should be 
such that the sacred right of freedom of speech in the 



12 DOMESTIC SLAVERY. April, 

representatives of the people, may be exercised on all 
subjects, without danger and without fear, — who that has 
watched the events of the few last years, can say that the 
abolition of slavery in that district may not be, if it is not, 
imperiously demanded by these high considerations. 

And can it be maintained that these obligations of this 
great nation lie prostrate at the feet of less than one thou- 
sand slave-holders! 

There is another objection to the existence of this right 
in Congress, more frequently insisted upon, but less plau- 
sible, than the one just considered. It is said "that any 
act or measure of Congress, designed to abolish slavery in 
the district, would be a violation of the faith implied in 
the cessions by the states of Virginia and Maryland." 

Where is the evidence of this faith ? How and when 
was it plighted? Were not the cessions deliberately made, 
transferring jurisdiction over the district to Congress, 
without reserve, " in full and absolute right," and in pur- 
suance of that clause of the constitution, which clothes 
Congress with power " to exercise exclusive legislation in 
all cases whatsoever ?" Did not these states understand 
this.^ Was not the extent of the provision fully discussed in 
their conventions, and well known to their statesmen and 
people ? It is not indeed pretended that this good faith is 
founded upon any express understanding, or that any evi- 
dence exists in word or act, before or at the cession, to 
countenance this singular position. The whole argument 
rests on the assertion that " Virginia and Maryland would 
never have ceded the territory, had they supposed slavery 
there would ever be abolished by the national govern- 
ment." 

But what then ? They made no such condition in their 
bargain, which was to them a valuable one. There is no 



1838. SENATE— No. 87. 13 

evidence that the effect of the cession upon the subject of 
slavery was in the mind of any one at the time ; and is 
the right of legislation, granted absolutely in terms, to be 
controlled by speculations as to what would probably have 
been the ideas of the grantors, if their attention had been 
called to the subject ? Is the purchaser of a farm bound, 
to all time, to use it only in such mode, as would have 
commended itself to him of whom he bouirht it ? Mas- 
sachusetts consented to the separation of Maine, and 
transferred all powers of legislation over her territory. Is 
Maine obliged to conform her political action to our 
wishes, or what would have been the wishes of our fa- 
thers ? Is it a sufficient and conclusive objection to any 
legislation by her, that if the people of Massachusetts had 
believed she would take such a course, they would never 
have consented to the separation ? Kentucky too, was a 
part of Virginia. Must she defer all action upon the 
subject of slavery, till she obtains the consent of her 
mother ? We obtained Louisiana by cession from France. 
Can France claim to have the institutions and govern- 
ment of that territory controlled by her own course of 
policy, or conformed to what were her wishes at the 
time of its cession ? 

And yet this is the principle of the objection, if it have 
any principle. In its relation to the District, it cannot 
be confined to the question of slavery. If it be true as 
to that, it is as true of every other subject of legislation. 
And on all questions the whole duty and j)Ower of Con- 
gress as to the District, would be to record and give the 
sanction of law to what are or have been the o[)inions of 
Marvland and Virginia. If such were the effect of the 
cessions, one might inquire why were they made at all ? 
Why might not the District have as well remained in 



14 DOMESTIC SLAVERY. April, 

Virginia and Maryland ? What was the great advan- 
tage of having exclusive control over the seat of govern- 
ment, which led our fathers to provide for it in the Con- 
stitution ? 

It is perhaps hardly worth while to carry the princi|)Ie 
out into all its consequences. It would lead to infinite 
absurdities. 

But the objection is probably as unfounded in fact, as 
it is in principle. There is vastly more evidence against 
the supposition that Virginia and Maryland would have 
withheld the power of abolishing slavery in the District, 
had the question been distinctly presented to them at the 
time of its cession, than there is in its support. There is 
something better than speculation on this subject. In 
1784, Virginia ceded her territory norihvvest of tlie Ohio, 
to the United States. In the course of the same year, 
the question as to its government, came before Congress, 
and Mr. Jefferson of Virginia, Mr. Chase, of Maryland, 
and one other gentleman composed the committee who 
reported the provision that, " there should be no slavery 
or involuntary servitude" therein. The resolution was 
lost at that time, but was revived in the ordinance of 
1787, and the very year of the adoption of the Constitu- 
tion, passed by the unanimous vote of all the states, every 
member from Virginia and Maryland being in the affirma- 
tive. Why was not the implied faith discovered then ? 
And how happens it, if their sentiments were such, as 
are now imputed to them, that Maryland and Virginia 
not only did not object to the abolition of slavery by 
Congress, in a territory ceded by one of them, but con- 
curred and assisted in the very act, not only on the floor 
of Congress, but Virginia, at least, by express legislative 
enactment. With the fact before them, that Congress 



1838. SENATE— No. 87. ]5 

had just construed a cession of territory in general terms, 
as investing it with authority to aholish shivery therein, 
would they not have stood upon their guard in respect 
to the District ? If they meant to restrict Congress on 
this subject would they not have seen the necessity and 
felt themselves bound to make it a condition of the grant, 
in express terms? The absence of any such condition, 
in such circumstances, shows them willing that the Na- 
tional Government should exercise over slavery in the 
District, the same power it had just done in the North 
Western Territory. 

The idea that these states would have objected to the 
jurisdiction of Congress over the subject of slavery from 
the fear of its abolition in the District, not only has no 
countenance in any act of either of those states at that 
period, but is contradicted by the well known opinions of 
nearly all their public men — of Washington, Jefferson, 
Patrick Henry, Wythe, Lee, Tucker, McHenry, Chase, 
and others, all of whom were not only openly oj^posed to 
slavery in the abstract, but looked forward with earnest 
desire and strong hope for its early abolition, by public 
law, in their own states and throughout the Union. 

But, on the principle of this objection, the understand- 
ing of the one party to the cession is not sufficient to 
qualify the effect of its express provisions. It must ap- 
pear that this understanding was known and assented to 
by the other. The faith must be mutual. Now where 
is the ground for supposing that when Congress accepted 
the cessions, as they were made, of unqualified and un- 
conditional jurisdiction, they consented that this grant 
should be clogged with conditions and qualifications which 
not only contradicted its terms, but were destructive of 
its object ? 



16 DOxMESTIC SLAVERY. April, 

But this question is decided by a higher power tlian the 
will either of Virginia and Maryland on the one hand, 
or of Congress on the other, — the power, the u ill of the 
people of these United States as expressed in their Con- 
stitution. That Constitution made express provision that 
Congress should have exclusive legislative power over 
the District " in all cases whatsoever." They, at least, 
understood this provision in its broadest sense. Thej re- 
fused all restrictions either upon its subjects or extent. 
No state had a right to grant, and Congress had no right 
to accept any territory, for this purpose, unless it was 
made the subject of this universal and exclusive legisla- 
tion. Any informal understanding, any " implied faith," 
that an express grant should be construed, in contradic- 
tion not only to its own terms, but to the fundamental 
law of the })eople, would be in fraud of their rights, and 
a violation of their constitution. This objection then to 
the legislation of Congress, has neither principle nor fact 
for its support. 

Your committee are therefore unanimously of opinion, 
that the power to abolish slavery and the slave-trade in 
the District of Columbia, does reside exclusively and ab- 
solutely in Congress : — that Congress is the depository 
of this power for national, as well as local purposes, and 
may exercise it, with a regard to the rij^hts of all, inde- 
pendently of the will and interests of any particular dis- 
trict or state, excepting so far as these are elements of 
the national will and prosperity : — and that for the wise 
and just use of this authority, its members are responsible 
(politically) not to the people of the District, or of Vir- 
ginia or Maryland, but to the whole people of the United 
States, whose representatives they are. 

Your committee are also of the opinion, as individuals. 



1838. SENATE— No, 87. 17 

that Congress ought immediately to exercise this power 
in the total abolition of slavery in the District of Colum- 
bia. If slavery be, as they believe it to be, a wrong and 
an evil, irreconcilable with the principles of natural jus- 
tice and humanity, forbidden by the precepts of Chris- 
tianity, and at war with the free principles of our govern- 
ment, they cannot well see how the duty can be separa- 
ted from the power. They see no justification of its con- 
tinuance, in the fear of consequences which are often 
connected with the idea of emancipation there. They 
believe that none of those consequences would follow : 
and to act in reference to some of them, would be to pros- 
trate the independence and freedom of action in one part 
of the Union, to the dictation of the other. Congress 
should act wisely and kindly in this matter, but it should 
act firmly also, and in accordance with its own sense of 
justice and duty. 

Thus far, the committee were unanimous. But they 
are divided upon the question whether it is expedient, at 
the present time, for the Legislature of Massachusetts, to 
make a formal declaration of the duty of Congress, and 
enjoin the same upon the members from this state. And 
a majority are not satisfied that such a course, which 
would undoubtedly be without immediate success, is de- 
manded by the present condition of the question, or would 
tend to the final advancement of the cause of justice and 
humanity. They think that, with the declaration of the 
right, the Legislature should under the circumstances, 
leave the expediency, the time and the manner of its ex- 
ercise, to those with whom it is constitutionally entrusted. 
(The chairman and three of his colleagues dissent from 
the conclusion of the majority of the committee as to the 
inexpediency of a declaration by the Legislature.) 
3 



18 DOMESTIC SLAVERY. April, 

Your committee are, however, unanimously, of opinion, 
that it is expedient that Massachusetts should declare her 
sentiments on the slave trade as it is now carried on in 
that district. It is singular, indeed, that the chosen seat 
and sacred inclosure of the national government should 
be the great slave mart of the country, where men, wo- 
men and children are made, by thousands, the subjects of 
a most odious and detestable traffic, which in another form, 
scarcely more inhuman, is stamped as a felony and punished 
with death ; which in this, must excite the abhorrence and 
disgust of every lover of humanity, and make every true- 
hearted American, who understands and feels the obligation 
of the principles which he j)rofesses, hang his head in shame. 
That the District of Columbia, the soil peculiarly con- 
secrated to freedom, in this land of boasted liberty, should 
be polluted by the presence of chains and fetters ; that its 
public and private prisons should be yearly filled with 
thousands of human beings, who have been torn, and for 
no crime, from their old associations, often, too, from their 
wives and husbands and parents and children, to be, in 
the sight of the very capitol, sold like beasts into hopeless 
bondage ; and that all this should be authorized by the 
government of the United States, is indeed " the most 
monstrous anomaly to which human inconsistency has 
ever given birth." 

The committee will not present, at length, the evi- 
dence of the extent and enormity of this merchandize in 
men, as it is carried on in the District of Columbia, or 
examine its revolting details. If any one is desirous of 
farther knowledge upon the subject, they refer him to 
the excellent speech of Mr. Miner, of Pennsylvania, de- 
livered in Congress Jan. 9, 1829, in support of his well 



1838. SENATE— No. 87. 19 

known resolution, — to the remarks of John Randolph, of 
Virginia, on presenting his resolution of inquiry into "the 
existence of an inhuman and illegal traffic in slaves car- 
ried on in and through the District of Columbia," — to a 
memorial to Congress in 1828, signed hy eleven hundred 
citizens of the district, embracing the judges of the cir- 
cuit court there, nearlv all of its most distinguished men, 
and the owners of more than half of the property in the 
district, — to the representation of the grand jury of Alex- 
andria, in 1822, presenting the slave trade in the district, 
as " a grievance demanding legislative redress," — to an- 
other similar representation of the grand jury of Washing- 
ton to the committee on the district in January, 1830, — 
and to the recent speech of Mr. Slade, of Vermont. 

The committee will, however, submit short extracts 
from the memorial of the citizens of the district, and the 
representation of the grand jury of Washington. 

The memorial thus describes the traffic and its conse- 
quences : 

" While the laws of the United States denounce the 
foreign slave trade as piracy, and punish with death those 
who are found engaged in its perpetration, there exists in 
this district, the seat of the national government, a do- 
mestic slave trade scarcely less disgraceful in its charac- 
ter, and even more demoralizing in its influence. For 
this is not, like the former, carried on against a barbarous 
nation ; its victims are reared up among the people of this 
country, educated in the precepts of the same religion, 
and imbued with similar domestic attachments. 

"These people are, without their consent, torn from 
their homes ; husband and wife are frequently separated 
and sold into distant parts ; children are taken from their 



20 DOMESTIC SLAVERY. April, 

parents, without regard to the ties of nature ; and the 
most endearing bonds of affection are broken forever. 

" Nor is this traffic confined to those who are legally 
slaves for life. Some who are entitled to freedom, and 
many who have a limited time to serve, are sold into un- 
conditional slavery ; and, owing to the defectiveness of 
our laws, they are generally carried out of the district be- 
fore the necessary steps can be taken for their release. 

" We behold these scenes continually taking place 
among us, and lament our inability to prevent them. 
The people of this district have, within themselves, no 
means of legislative redress ; and we therefore appeal to 
your honorable l)ody, as the only one invested by the 
American constitution with the power to relieve us." 

In the representation of the grand jury of Washington, 
January, 1830, through their foreman, it is said : — "the 
district is made a market for the purchase and sale of 
great numbers of slaves, annually brought here for that 
purpose. These wretched beings are frequently seen 
passing through our streets, like droves of cattle, to houses 
of deposite, set up and maintained for that purpose. The 
inhuman practice is so shocking to the moral sense of the 
community, as to call loudly for the interposition of Con- 
gress." 

This evil has been constantly increasing, for many 
years, and it is believed to require vigorous action on the 
part of those states, who would free themselves from its 
responsibility. 

Slavery in the Territories. 

Many of the petitioners ask the Legislature to declare 
that Congress has the power to abolish slavery in the 



1838. SENATE— No. 87. 21 

territories of the United States, and that this power ought 
to be immediately exercised. 

That the general power of legislation over the territo- 
ries, exists, as insisted on by the petitioners, none of the 
committee have the slightest doubt. It not only belongs 
to the government of the United States as a necessary 
incident to its sovereignty, in those places within its ju- 
risdiction which are deprived of the benefits of state gov- 
ernment, but is expressly recognized and provided for by the 
constitution. In the 3d section of the 4th article is this 
clause : — " The Congress shall have power to dispose of, 
and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the 
territory and other property belonging to the United 
States." This has always been construed, and accord- 
ing to its obvious meaning, to include a right of exclusive 
legislation over the territories, which may be transferred 
to another body, or exercised directly by Congress. 
Judge Story says, " The power of Congress over the 
public territory is clearly exclusive and universal, and 
their legislation is subject to no control, but is absolute 
and unlimited, unless so far as it is affected by stipulations 
in the cessions, or by the ordinance of 1787, under which 
any part of it has been settled." (3 Story's Comm. 198. 
See also Rawle on Const. 237. American Ins. Co. v. Car- 
ters. 1 Peters R. 51 1.) As the only territoi-y, in which 
slavery exists, is not subject to either of these exceptions, 
the entire control of its institutions belongs to Congress, 
subject only to the general provisions of the constitution. 
Slavery, as existing there, being matter of legislation, is 
then tolerated and upheld by Congress, and may be re- 
moved at its pleasure. And when we remember, that the 
ordinance of the old Congress of 1787 was in view of the 
framers of the constitution, and the people, who adopted 



22 DOMESTIC SLAVERY. April, 

it, it cannot be doubted, that the power over slavery in 
the territories was granted understandingly, and with a 
full knowledge that it might, and indeed was likelj, to be 
exercised. 

But while the committee are unanimously of this opin- 
ion as to the right, and would by no means deny the duty, 
of Congress to abolish slavery in the territory of Florida, 
where it exists, a majority of them are led to the same 
conclusion, as to a declaration of opinion by the Legisla- 
ture, and for the same reasons, which they have already 
expressed in relation to the District of Columbia. 

The Slave Trade between the States. 

Another prayer of one class of the petitioners, is, that 
the Legislature should declare, that *' Congress have the 
right to abolish the slave trade between the states," and 
that " it ought immediately to exercise it." 

This is, perhaps, the most important power which is at- 
tributed to Congress, over the subject of slavery, and yet 
it has not often been discussed. Some of your committee 
had doubts upon this subject, at the commencement of 
their investigations, but the result of their individual stu- 
dy, and interchange of opinions, has been to remove those 
doubts, and they are unitedly of opinion, that Congress 
does possess the power to regulate or entirely prohibit, at 
its discretion, the trade in slaves, as in any other article 
which is made the subject of commerce, between the dif- 
ferent states. 

They are able to give their reasons for this opinion on- 
ly very briefly and imperfectly. The power is expressly 
given to Congress by the constitution (Art. 1,^8,) " to 



1838. SENATE— No. 87. 23 

regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the 
several states, and with the Indian tribes.^'' 

It has been decided, that the word '•'• commerce,'''' ?is used 
in this section, embraces " the bujing, selling, and inter- 
change of commodities, as well as navigation and inter- 
course,'' Indeed, the justice of the first branch of the 
definition has never been doubted, and the question which 
was made in regard to the last, has been settled bj the 
supreme court of the United States. (Gibbons v, Ogden, 
9 Wheaton's R. 189. Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheaton's 
R. 446. 2 Store's Comm. 506, et. scq.) 

Commerce, therefore, between the states, in the pur- 
chase, sale, and interchange of every thing, which is 
rightly or wrongfully made its subject, may be regula- 
ted by Congress. And this regulation may be, either 
by the prescribing of rules for the government of trade 
and intercourse, or by the entire prohibition of any par- 
ticular species of traffic between different states, or the 
transfer of any particular class of persons and commodi- 
ties from one state to another. These principles seem to 
be abundantly settled, and upon the best of reasons. 

It is to be remarked, also, that precisely the same 
power is given to Congress, and in the same words, over 
commerce between the states, and over commerce with 
foreign nations. If then it can prohibit the foreign slave 
trade by virtue of this clause, it can, as certainly pro- 
hibit the domestic inter-state slave trade. The first 
power it has exercised, without question, and on what 
principle can the last be denied ? 

The argument is briefly and clearly stated in a memo- 
rial, prepared and presented to Congress, on " the pro- 
hibition of slavery in the new states," in 1819, in behalf 
of the citizens of Boston. The names of the committee 



24 DOMESTIC SLAVERY. April, 

borne upon the memorial are Daniel Webster, George 
Blake, Josiah Quincy, James T. Austin, and John Gal- 
lison. 

" The Constitution declares," say they, " that the mi- 
gration or importation of such persons as any of the 
states, now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall not 
be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808. It 
is most manifest that the Constitution does contemplate, 
in the very terms of this clause that Congress possesses 
the authority to prohibit the migration or importation of 
slaves ; for it limits the exercise of this authority for a 
specified period of time, leaving it to its full operation 
ever afterwards. And this power seems necessarily in- 
cluded in the authority winch belongs to Congress, to 
regulate commerce with foreign nations and amon^ the 
several states. No person has ever doubted that the pro- 
hibition of the foreign slave trade was completely within 
the authority of Congress since the year 1808. And 
why ? Certainly only because it is embraced in the 
regulation of foreign commerce, and if so it may for like 
reason be prohibited, since that period, between the states. 
Commerce in slaves, since the year 1808, being as much 
the subject of regulation as any other commerce, if it 
should see fit to enact that no slave should ever be sold 
from one state to another, it is not perceived how the 
constitutional right to make such provision can be ques- 
tioned.'' 

The committee have heard of but two objections to this 
view of the question, both of which they will briefly no- 
tice. 

It is said, in the first place, that the power to regulate, 
is not a power to destroy, and that under this authority, 
therefore, Congress may prescribe rules for the govern- 



1838. SENATE— No. 87. 25 

ment of trade and intercourse, but cannot prohibit them. 
It may tax and govern, but it cannot anniiiilate commerce. 

But may it not interdict trade in a particular article or 
class of articles ? This is the question here. If it can- 
not, then certainly the law against the foreign slave trade 
is unconstitutional, for the objection would apply as well 
to the foreign as the domestic slave trade. Neither of 
them could be prohibited according to this principle, and 
the men are innocent sufferers under a void enactment, 
whom we hang as pirates. 

The objection is undoubtedly borrowed from that which 
was made against the embargo law. (Act 22 Dec. 1 807.) 
Even, if these were parallel cases, and the same principle 
was applicable to both, the objection would fail, for the 
constitutionality of the embargo has been affirmed in all the 
judicial decisions, and is now generally admitted. (Uni- 
ted States V. Brigantine William, 2 Hall's L. J. 255. 
Sergeant's Const, law, 306. 2 Kent's Comm. 405. 2 
Story's Comm. 509, 161-2-3. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 
VVheaton's R.) 

But the objection does not even derive countenance from 
the opinions of those, who maintained the want of power 
in Congress to pass the embargo. They admitted, that 
Congress might prohibit trade in any particular species of 
commerce, not embracing all its articles, or might prohibit 
it as to any particular place, or for a limited time — and 
they objected to the embargo only because it was a per- 
petual act, against all foreign commerce, of every kind, 
and this they said was " annihilating,''^ not " regulating''' 
commerce. But their admission would include the riaht 
now under discussion, and their doctrines, instead of de- 
nying, would affirm the authority of Congress to interdict 
the foreign slr.ve trade, and the same trade between the 
4 



26 DOMESTIC SLAVERY. April, 

states, for this would be the prohibition " of a particular 
.species of commerce," and not of all commerce. (See 
former references.) 

It is said, again, that Congress cannot exercise this 
power over commerce in the suppression of the slave 
trade, without a violation of the spirit of the constitution, 
because it was given to be used only for commercial pur- 
poses. 

This narrow construction has little foundation in fact, 
reason or authority. It would not only stamp the act 
prohibiting the foreign slave trade as an usurpation, but 
render void nearly every enactment by Congress, relating 
to commerce. 

Mr. Justice Story, in his commentaries, (vol. 2. pp. 
518-19,) enumerates some of the objects and purposes to 
which the power to regulate commerce may be constitu- 
tionally applied. Among these are revenue, prohibition, 
retaliation, the laying of embargoes, mere political pur- 
poses, the encouragement of manufactures, quarantine, 
&c. &c. " In all these cases," he says, " the right and 
duty of Congress have been conceded to the national gov- 
ernment by the unequivocal voice of the people," and yet 
hardly one of them is simply commercial. " A power to 
regulate commerce," says Mr. Justice Story again, " is 
not necessarily a power to advance its interests. It may 
in given cases, suspend its operations, or restrict its ad- 
vancement or scope." (2 Comm. 531.) 

In the language of Judge Davis, (2 Hall's Law Journal, 
273,) " The power to regulate commerce is not to be 
confined to the adoption of measures exclusively benefi- 
cial to commerce itself, or tending to its advancement, 
but in our national system, as in all modern sovereignties, 



1838. SENATE— No. 87. 27 

it is also to be considered as an instrument for other pur- 
poses of general policy, and interest." 

These principles, which are decisive against the objec- 
tion last named, are founded in sound rules of construc- 
tion of the constitution, and in accordance with the ex- 
pressed intention of its framers, and have been adopted 
hitherto in the practical administration of our government. 

Your committee are all of opinion, that this power ought 
to be exercised by Congress, in the suppression of the 
slave trade between the states — a trade, which has grown 
up almost entirely within a comparatively late period, 
and is admitted to be justly odious in its character. Over 
this trade Congress not only has the control, but it has it 
exclusively. The states, between whom it exists, can 
have no effective power over it, but must look to the gen- 
eral government for the removal of its evils. The states- 
men in Virginia, particularly, have expressed the greatest 
abhorrence of its common and necessary features, but al- 
though she might not plead the exemption, and may be 
jealous of what she might call federal interference, yet it 
is nevertheless true, that Virginia, as a state, is not re- 
sponsible for any considerable share of the evil, even as 
exhibited within her own borders. The government of 
the United States is responsible, for with her only is the 
power adequate to its suppression. 

Up to the year 1820, it would seem that the slave trade, 
which has since been so vigorously carried on between 
the north-eastern and south-western of the slave states, 
was hardly known. The statesmen of Virginia were sen- 
sitive at any suggestion that this proud Commonwealth 
should ever habitually supply the subjects of such a traffic. 
The following remarkable passage in the admirable speech 
of John Sergeant, of Philadelphia, on the Missouri ques- 



28 DOMESTIC SLAVERY. April, 

tion, will show something of the state of feeling on the 
subject. In comj)aring the prophecj with what has since 
become fact, one is almost led to wonder at their striking 
coincidence. (See 18 Niles' Register, 384.) "All liberal 
minds in all parts of the Union, have with one voice 
agreed in the necessity of abolishing that detestable traffic 
in human flesh, the slave trade — the foreign slave trade. 
But, reject the amendment on your table, admit Missouri 
without restriction, and you will inevitably introduce and 
establish a great inland domestic slave trade, not, it is 
true, with all the horrors of the middle passage, nor the 
cold-blooded calculations upon the waste of human life in 
the seasoning, but still with many of the odious features 
and some of the most cruel accompaniments of that hate- 
ful traffic. From Washington to St. Louis may be a dis- 
tance of one thousand miles. Through this great space 
and even a much greater, you must witness the transpor- 
tation in slaves with the usual appendages of hand-cuffs 
and chains. The ties of domestic life will be violently 
rent asunder, and those whom nature has bound together 
suffer all the pangs of an unnatural and cruel separation. 
Unfeeling force, stimulated by unfeeling avarice, will tear 
the parent from the child, and the child from the parent, 
— the husband from the wife, and the wife from the hus- 
band. We have latelv witnessed something of this sort, 
during the period of high prices. Gentlemen of the south, 
particularly those from Virginia, who speak of their slaves 
as part of their family, would start at this. They would 
reject with scorn and indignation even a suggestion that 
they were to furnish a market for the supply of slaves to 
the other states. * * But can any one tell what cu- 
pidity may win or necessity extort ? No man is superior 
to the assaults of fortune ; and if he were, the stroke of 



1838. SENATE— No. 87. 29 

death will come, and break down his paternal govern- 
ment, and then the slave dealer, whom he would have 
kicked from his enclosure like a poisonous reptile, pre- 
sents himself — to whom ? He cannot tell !" 

How graphic is the picture, and how exactly has the 
prediction been fulfilled ! 

Very soon after this, the active trade in slaves, which 
Mr. Sergeant had foreseen, commenced, and has been 
steadily increasing ever since. In Niles' Register for 
1829, (published at Baltimore,) we find the following 
testimony — (Vol. 35, p. 4.) " Dealing in slaves has be- 
come a large business. Establishments are made at sev- 
eral places in Maryland and Virginia, at which they are 
sold like cattle. The places of deposit are strongly built 
and well supplied with iron thumb screws and gags, and 
ornamented with cowskins and other whips — oftentimes 
bloody." 

In 1836, this trade, from well known causes, was great- 
ly stimulated, and probably in that year alone more than 
07ie hundred thousand human beings in the northern slave, 
holding states were sold to strange masters to be carried 
to the south-west. In Virginia alone it is estimated by 
intelligent men, that at least forty thousand were thus 
sold. 

The committee will not trust themselves to give a de- 
scription of the horrors of this traffic in their own words. 
But surely they cannot be accused of harshness, or ex- 
travagance, if they quote the language of distinguished 
gentlemen of the south, giving their estimate of its cruel- 
tv and wrons:. 

The subject was discussed in the debates of the Vir- 
ginia Legislature, in 1832, and none denied the cruel 
character of the trade. Mr. Thomas Jefferson Randolph, 



30 DOMESTIC SLAVERY. April, 

then and now a popular and influential member of the 
Legislature of that Commonwealth, thus describes it : 
" It is a practice, and an increasing practice in parts of 
Virginia, to rear slaves for market. How can an honor- 
able mind, a patriot, and a lover of his country, bear to 
see this ancient dominion, rendered illustrious by the no- 
ble devotion and patriotism of her sons, in the cause of 
liberty, converted into one grand menagerie, where men 
are to be reared for the market like oxen for the sham- 
bles. Is it belter — is it not worse than the (foreign) slave 
trade, — that trade which enlisted the labor of the good and 
wise of every creed and every clime to abolish ? The 
(foreign) trader receives the slave, a stranger in language, 
aspect, and manner, from the merchant, who has brought 
liim from the interior. The ties of father, mother, hus- 
band, and child, have already been rent in twain ; before 
he receives him, his soul has become callous. But here, 
sir, individuals, wh.om the master has known from infan- 
cy, whom he has seen sporting in the innocent gambols 
of childhood — who have been accustomed to look to him 
for protection, he tears from the mother's arms, and sells 
into a strange country, — among strange people, — sub- 
ject to cruel task-nrdsters." 

The limits of the committee, will permit them to quote 
one more only of the many descriptions of this traffic, by 
those who best know its character. The following is 
from the Address of the Presbyterian Synod of Kentucky 
to the churches, in 1835: " Brothers and sisters, parents 
and children, husbands and wives, are torn asunder, and 
permitted to see each other no more. These acts are 
daily occurring in the midst of us. The shrieks and the 
agony often witnessed on such occasions, proclaim witii a 
trumpet tongue the iniquity and cruelty of the system. 



1838. SENATE— No. 87. 31 

* * * There is not a neighborhood, where these heart- 
rending scenes are not displayed. There is not a vilhige 
or road that does not behold the sad procession of man- 
acled outcasts, whose chains and mournful countenances 
tell that they are exiled by force, from all that their hearts 
hold dear." 

If the truth of these pictures is admitted, (and who will 
deny it?) who can doubt, that the duty of removing the 
evil is imperative ? And if Congress is the depository of 
the only power, adequate to this object, can it refuse to 
exercise it without incurring a responsibility, too heavy to 
be lightly thrown off, and too sacred to be neglected 
without guilt. 

All the committee are of opinion, that the prohibition 
of this odious trade has become the solemn duty of Con- 
gress — and a majority believe, that it is required of Mas- 
sachusetts, that she should, through her Legislature, make 
a declaration of her sentiments upon this sul)ject. 

The Admission of New States. 

Another class of petitioners request a declaration of the 
Legislature of Massachusetts, that " no new state ought 
to be admitted into the Union, whose constitution shall 
tolerate domestic slavery." Massachusetts, as well as 
her sister states of New York, Pennsylvania, New Hamp- 
shire and others, has, on another occasion, some years 
since, made the declaration, and such, undoubtedly, is the 
well settled opinion of her people. The committee are 
unanimously of opinion, that circumstances exist, which 
render the renewed expression of this sentiment expedi- 
ent, if not an imperative duty. 



32 DOMESTIC SLAVERY. April, 

The ccmmittee have now considered all the subjects 
committed to them, and submit, as the result of their de- 
liberations, the accompanying resolves : 

1. Relating to slavery and the slave trade in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, and territories of the United States. 

2. Relating to the slave trade between the different 
states. 

3. Relatins; to the admission of new states into the 
Union. 

The subjects have been separated into classes, to 
prevent the embarrassment always attending the combi- 
nation of questions involving different principles, and so 
that each may be submitted, by itself, to the consideration 
of the Legislature. 

The committee have thus completed their labors, which, 
though arduous, have not been uninstructive. The result 
is with the Legislature. It is highly important, that the 
precise boundary between the powers of the national and 
state governments, on this subject, should be defined and 
established. It is said, indeed, that, if the powers, 
which we have considered, should be exercised by the 
federal government, they would be followed by attempts 
to use the same authority to abolish slavery in the 
states. There can be no ground for such a suggestion. 
It is admitted by all, that, over slavery in the states, the 
national government can have no control, and it is a sin- 
gular argument, that the exercise of an authority consti- 
tutionally granted, would be a precedent for usurping a 
power which is withheld. 

It is said, too, that national action upon these subjects, 
will have a tendency to overthrow the institutions of the 
south — by enlisting the moral sentiment of the country 
against them. If by this it is meant, that the deliberate 



1838. SENATE— No. 87. 33 

testimony of the nation against slavery, expressed in its 
public acts, niiglit lead to the accunuilation of a strong moral 
power in the nation, generally, and probably in the south 
itself, against the institution every where, there may 
be much truth in the assertion. But, even if it would be 
wrong to regard this incident as an object, it certainly is 
not a result which furnishes any argument against an 
act which in itself is required by national justice, con- 
sistency and the common good. The south might just 
as reasonably have demanded of Pennsylvania and the 
other northern states, that they should not have abol- 
ished slavery, or object to the discussion, in view of the 
same result, which is now going on in Kentucky, because 
it would create a public sentiment against then, as, for 
the same reason, to oppose the exercise by Congress, of 
the authority, with which the constitution has invested it, 
and from the great responsibility attached to which, it 
cannot, if it would, be free. 

All which is respectfully submitted. 

For the committee, 

JAMES C. ALVORD, Chairman. 



34 DOMESTIC SLAVERY. April, 



RESOLVES 

Relating to Slavery and the Slave Trade in the District 
of Columbia, and Territories of the United States. 

Resolved, That Congress has, by the constitution, 
power to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia ; and that there is nothing in the terms 
or circumstances of the acts of cession by Virginia and 
Maryland, or otherwise, imposing any legal or moral re- 
straint upon its exercise. 

Resolved, That the inhuman traffic in slaves, carried 
on in and through the District of Columbia, is a national 
disgrace and a national sin ; and ought to be abolished. 

Resolved, That Congress has, by the constitution, 
power to abolish slavery in the territories of the United 
States. 

Resolved, That His Excellency the Governor be re- 
quested to forward a copy of these Resolves to each of 
our Senators and Representatives in Congress. 



1838. SENATE— No. 87. 35 



RESOLVES 



Relating to the Slave Trade between the States. 

Resolved, That Congress has, by the Constitution, 
power to abolish the traffic in slaves, between different 
Stales of the Union. 

Resolved, That the exercise of this power is demand- 
ed by the principles of humanity and justice. 

Resolved, That his Excellency the Governor, be re- 
quested to forward a copy of these Resolves, to each of 
our Senators and Representatives in Congress. 



36 DOMESTIC SLAVERY. April, 1838. 



RESOLVES 



Relating: to the admission of new States into the Union. 

Resolved, That no new State should hereafter be ad- 
mitted into the Union, whose constitution of government, 
shall permit the existence of domestic slavery. 

Resolved, That his Excellency the Governor, he re- 
quested to forward a copy of these Resolves to each of 
our Senators and Representatives in Congress. 



54 w 




V'-^^^V^ \/r^*y^ \^^^^^*\o>^ \/i^i: 



..-. X^^^^ 














0^ >2). 



























• ^5 







^.^^' 








^-<r^' 









^^0^ 













%*^-'/ ^^'T?^-^-^^ ^<V*^--/ ^<>* 






"*^ A« 't* 







«-"' *r 














^ * 












"h^ 



°^*^-'^° 'V'-^«\-s,'«'^ °<^**^^-'X .. %* 
































.^^% 




.♦^ 



'^'^^^^ "M^^*^ '^'fU.rS' oV^^PT. ^»U,>^ •'dSlt6^^\ '^^r.i 










